As many of you have no doubt seen, the straight-talking reformer had the following to say about Arianna, after she exposed yet another bit of hypocrisy about a man who at this point might join Karl Rove in smearing hiw own daughter if he thought it would win him an extra vote somewhere:
Asked why Huffington would make up her story about McCain not voting for Bush, longtime McCain aide Mark Salter -- who has previously tangled with the Huffington Post -- ripped into her. "Why would she make something up? Because she's a flake, and a poser, and an attention seeking diva. And that's on the record."
Arianna wrote about how McCain told her in 2000 he didn't vote for President Bush. If you have researched the man as exhaustively as I have, you can be quite sure that this is not only entirely plausible, but likely. But what seals it for me is that Arianna said it, McCain denied it, and then he attacked her. Because that is his modus operandi when he is lying, which these days he does about as often as he blurts out "my friends."
Like Arianna, I once believed in McCain. In 2000 I gave him a campaign contribution and really thought he was a leader. Then I saw him embrace President Bush. Quite literally. And I saw him start to pander to the worst elements in his party and our country, and switch positions more times than if he had been reading the Kama Sutra (I know, kinda gross).
When my book The Real McCain came out, the McCain people labeled it "trash journalism," because it told a few stories about the man he would prefer stayed hidden in reporters' notebooks. Then he got a story killed in a large newspaper in Great Britain about my book. Here is an email from the reporter providing me with the details of their attack on my character:
from XXXXXApr 11
to Clifford Schecter
date Apr 11, 2008 6:02 PM
subject RE: book
Hi Cliff,
As far as I know it is dead here, so feel free to talk to your people. I would prefer if you didn't reveal my name or publication, but you should know what happened. The reason for being this is that my editor would not be pleased.
I called McCain's people for comment. The told me that first that this was all off the record, that you were a super liberal with a hate streak, that you were known to make outlandish comments like this and that you were not a reliable source. Then they said that they would prefer that we didn't go with anything, just to protect the Senator's image from false information. Because this was just a crazy, gossipy piece of journalism anyway.
I then asked for a quote for the article, as my editor needed something from them. They said, "Well, I know you aren't going to like this" and with a little almost smirk from them:
"This book is just tabloid trash," said Crystal Benton, a spokeswoman for the McCain campaign. "The fact that it is even being reported speaks to the sad state of journalism today."
I further asked if the Senator was going to pursue legal action for libel, and she said no, and would not cite a reason why.
Well constructed comment from them if I ever heard one. Would make a lot of news editors reconsider.
Let me know if you need anything,
XXXXX
Well, of course they are not going to pursue legal action. Because everything in the book is true. This might also be why when asked if he used the "c-word" in a tirade against his wife he refused to answer the question (in Iowa at a town hall meeting the other day) and he and his underpaid bevy of sycophantic hacks contradicted each other on whether another story happened that I broke in the book (a fight with Rick Renzi--McCain told Fox it hadn't happened, then his people told The Washington Post it did).
This, folks, is The Real McCain. Like me, Arianna had the audacity to criticize McCain. For that she was smeared. Does anyone really think a President McCain will be any different than the current White House occupant?
Cliff Schecter is the author of The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don't Trust Him And Why Independents Shouldn't. Buy a copy (for only $10!) and keep both his 18-month old son and John McCain in diapers.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
In answer to your question about whether McCain will be different from the current White House occupant: McCain may be worse. He may be more blood-thirsty than Chaney.
During the 2000 So. Carolina presidential campaign, GW Bush and his advisors conducted a 2000 smear campaign against John and Cindy McCain, alleging that their adopted Bangladeshi daughter was John's child. Given the context, is it a surprise that the McCain's wouldn't vote for Bush? Arianna is merely revealing the truth of McCain's mendacious grasping for the Republican vote at any cost.
You were too kind. What Bush did was spread the story that the girl was McCain's black love-child. Well, not Bush himself, but his surrogates. The beginning of his plausible deniability adminstration. In addition, Bush surrogates spread the tale that Cindy McCain was a drug addict. If I were McCain, I would cut my hands off before I would embrace the lying bastard who slimed my family. But then again, what was that compared to his sliming our nation? May he (GWB) burn in the Hell he pretends to believe in.
Cliff, you overlooked Obama trashing his grandmother and throwing his long-time pastor under the bus all for political expediency. Next he will muzzle his angry, guilt ridden wife who is quickly becoming a political liability. Watch her disappear in September and October.
But back to you, Cliff, because this little noticed posting of yours has more "I", "me" and "mine" typed than your average university has liberal professors. Your essay is a cheap attempt to rid a few warehouses of the hit piece book you cooked up. At $10 a pop, this must be a last ditch effort to break even before you start giving them away. I"m sure you are facing warehouse and storage fees?
And, beside you and the left wing trash lovers, who cares if McCain voted for or against Bush. The truth is he probably voted for himself in the 2000 Arizona primary and not Bush. Go figure. And please keep trying to link Bush and McCain. It will backfire and blowup in your face. The weakest issue for Obama is national security and defense. The guy"s a big wimp and you people know it. I predict a 6-8 point landslide for McCain in November. I"ll be back to gloat the day after. That you CAN count on!
Read Glen Greenwald's book and you will see that t he right wing has long tried to label Democrats as wimps. Well that nonsense ain't gonna fly anymore. How can you think that George Bush was such a tough guy hero? Because he has dressed up in costumes and paraded around like a clown? He didn't go to war when the country needed him, but he put our men and women in harms way as long as he didn't have to lose any blood over it.
I'm tired of cowboy politics. What's needed is diplomacy. And Barack can give us that. People aren't afraid anymore. We aren't cowering under our beds waiting for the next terrorist attack. That didn't work for the GOP in 06 and it won't work now.
McCain is toast. I don't know of many tough-guy 71-year olds. If you want to make toughness a prerequesite for the job of presidency, then you better get a younger more virile john wayne character to play the role of McCain. This isn't an ironman contest. We need a president with a brain and a plan.
When McCain can start remembering more than he forgets I'll be worried. Until then, I'm pretty confident about President Obama.
The thing is, national security and defense are McCain's biggest weaknesses, too. His plan for both is to keep engaging in land wars in Asia until we lose one completely. Obama didn't throw anyone under the bus, he distanced himself from Wright after it became clear that Wright was going to make himself into a political liability; as for his grandmother, that was such a ridiculously overblown piece of agitprop that even partisan hack Chris Wallace called it out as silly on the air--on Fox News, of all places.
I'm not sure how linking Bush and McCain could possibly "blow up in" anyone's face; McCain is promising 4 more years of Bush policies, which the country has thoroughly rejected. He thinks "four more years" is a great campaign slogan for this election cycle. So, it can't blow up because it's a lie, or a distortion. Are you seriously proposing that in the next few months, Bush policies will suddenly become popular? Because I'd like to hear the supporting logic for that one. I don't see it.
What we care about Mack is the TRUTH. Yes, I understand it's a hard, scary concept for you, but we open minded people prefer it over the Bush/McCain "Believe MY version of the truth cuz I say it over and over" lies. So, pack up your hatred, lick your wounds or suck your thumb, but get over it. The people are finally waking up!
Open minded? When was the last time you voted for a republican? Your'e probably not even registered. Hate flows here from you Christian hating liberals like Ol' Man River flows to the Gulf. Nonstop and usually a flood! You people constantly project every guilt-ridden emotion you"re capable of. The popular mindset here is "if I do it then everyone must".
Mack, people like you puzzle me. Is your hatred driven by racism or ignorance?
If you are a sentient being, you must know that the true trash lovers are right wing. You have heard of right wing talk radio, right? Does the left have anything comparable? I don't think so.
As to whether McCain voted for Bush, that was not the issue. The issue was whether McCain lied about not voting for Bush. (And it was not the Arizona primary that was at issue, but the general election.) Perhaps you have not had your fill of delusional pathological liars, but I have.
And, yes, we will continue to link McCain to Bush because he has done so himself. This will not backfire or blow up in the face of anyone other than McCain.
Finally, national security and defense are McCain's and Bush's weakest issues for those voters who think for themselves. Obama was right on Iraq while Bush and McCain are committed to the greatest strategic blunder in American history - perhaps in world history. The Bush-McCain policy has only served to weaken our military and debilitate our overall defense. And, oh, by the way, did you notice it has failed to destroy Al Queda and Osama bin Laden? I guess our real enemies don't matter to faux patriots like yourself.
I'm going to try to post this one last time. As I posted originally, the censorship is awful. Mr. Schecter, I've admired your writing in the past so please don't delete this again. I'd like it to stand as written earlier:
I know my comment will be stricken and never allowed to see the light of day as with so many of my other comments (regarding HuffPo's recent Fox-like headlines, Ms. Fowler and more), but doesn't anyone see the pure hypocrisy in this?
I used to love HuffPo. Loved it. Ate it up for days on end. But with the pure censorship seen here lately,doesn't anyone see the hypocritical irony in this piece? Arianna, or her surrogate, is claiming that they've been maligned? Arianna had the audacity (quite the worn-out word lately) to go after John Mcain--while those of us here who at one time loved Huffpo are censored (or deleted like many DKOSers have pointed out recently; sorry don't have the link handy),
As much as I hate John McCain, more and more it appears that HuffintionP really has become the Fox news of liberal "journalism," and I simply can't feel sorry for Arianna until things start to change around here. I've been here since the beginning. Please don't continue down this path.
I'll be surprised if this post even surfaces. Most of my other ones haven't seemed to. Let's try not to become the thing we most-despised. This is my last plea.
I agree with you 100%. I too have been an avid follower since day 1. Huffpo is not what it used to be. I too checked in several times a day and as of late some days I don't check in at all. The headlines are so misleading and some are blatantly biased. Many posts I have written do not get the green light-WHAT HAPPENED TO FREE SPEECH? Also, I only read the first few comments because they turn into a hate fest and are just plain mean and nasty. I hope Arianna will do something to remedy this situation and bring Huffpo back to being a credible news source.
Welcome to my world. But actually, it's gotten better as of late. Could be the time of day I usually comment, though.
You know what's just so very disgusting about Salter's ridiculous comments about Arianna?
Those are the straightshooting bullshitter's words.
You can just hear that mean old man saying them.
It's the same nasty tone of someone who would call his wife a trollop and the c-word simply because she did something that embarrassed him.
We've had over 7 years of having the deadly combination of vindictiveness and idiocy in our White House, appointing our Supremes, and making us the laughing stock of the world. Enough already.
With McSame, we may as well pack up America and call it a day.
Because we'll all be cooked if we let that man have his finger on the button.
He is one mean and nasty man. No doubt about it.
McCain is unfit to be President.
McCain has no moral compass. He will do and say anything to get what he wants.
McCain is under control of the Big Money and will continue to sell-out American Freedom and Prosperity, just like republicans have been doing for decades.
If you like war, Big Brother government, unemployment , hunger etc....vote for John McCain...the New Bush.
Let me guess. This is your standard viewpoint everyday in the classroom? You liberal democrats have had your own version of Operation Chaos working for decades on every college campus in America. Without tenure you are DOOMED! One can only dream.
SEVEN DEVICES OF PROPAGANDA:
1) Name calling -- giving something a bad label to make the audience reject it without
examining the evidence
2. Glittering generalities -- the opposite of name calling
3. Card stacking -- the selective use of facts and half-truths
4. Bandwagon -- appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to follow the crowd
5. Plain folks -- an attempt to convince an audience that they, and their ideas, are "of the people"
6. Transfer -- carries over the authority, sanction and prestige of something we respect to something the speaker would want us to accept or dispute (there's a typo in this definition on the IU Media Relations page)
7. Testimonials -- involving a respected (or disrespected) person endorsing or rejecting an idea or person.
Hers' Bob Kerrey's version of what you claim happened in the Grassley story:
"Since I was mentioned in the Post story I can offer my account of the McCain-Grassley argument. First, I did nothing to intervene; the two Senators worked it out on their own. Second, the subject of the debate - the status of Americans held as prisoner in Vietnam - was one that always provoked violent, ugly debates. The precise point of disagreement between the Senators was over a man name Robert Garwood. Senator Grassley believed he was a hero whose reputation was destroyed by the Defense Intelligence Agency. Senator McCain believed him to a traitor who caused prisoners (like Senator McCain) to receive additional encounters with torture. Both Senators were extremely angry. Senator McCain was explosive (who wouldn't be?) but at no time threatening. Most important: McCain won the argument. My experience is that his anger always has a purpose and in this case the purpose was to defeat Senator Grassley's argument which he did decisively."
So two of the stories in this Soros-funde book have already been shown to be false.
"(a fight with Rick Renzi--McCain told Fox it hadn't happened, then his people told The Washington Post it did)"
No, Cliff. This is what McCain aid Mark Salter says about the Renzi story, and what he told the WaPo about it:
"Let me give you two examples of Leahy's reporting practices that serve to underscore that he had a thesis he wanted to prove and forced facts to make them fit it.
I am quoted regarding the Renzi incident saying something like "no punches were thrown," making it seem as if i was excusing any incident as evidence of bad temper unless McCain drew blood. In fact, Leahy suggested to me that McCain had thrown a punch (I believe he got this from a defamatory book published recently by a Democratic activist). I responded directly to an accusation. More, I told him that McCain hadn't lost his temper at all. McCain routinely refers to people and colleagues as "boy." He does to me, to Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman, and almost everybody. It's like saying hey, buddy. He means nothing by it. Renzi was relatively new to Congress, and got upset when McCain refered to him in this completely innocuous way. All McCain told Renzi was that he meant nothing by it, and Renzi should calm down or words to that effect. That was it. And I explained all that to Leahy. None of it made it into the story."
Thank You Julie.
when McCain went to seek Rev. Jerry Farwell"s support and McCain going to seek the support of the likes of Rev. Hagee and a host of other "agents of intolerance;" while turning his back on his brown skin adopted daughter that said it all for me.
Notice how McCain does not mention her nor does she appear on the campaign trail.
McCain is worst kind of political opportunist, McCain is a political charlatan.
How on earth has McCain "turned his back" on his daughter? You know he doesn't mention his other 6 kids either at campaign events, except Meghan, who's working on the campaign. People like you who love to attack the girl for the color of her skin are the reason the child's privacy needs to be protected.
Thanks to the press, we have the 3 worst candidates for President we could out of the field that started the race. None of them are worth a darn.
DITTOS! Opps, did I really say that?
Libel and slander are easier to prove in the UK, and there is the little fact of the stories with no sources. So spin it as you like in the US, but watch out in the UK.
It's things like this that make one proud to be an American.
Keep speaking truth to power. Once the democratic nomination is settled (hopefully soon) the media will realize that there's a republican candidate in this race who hasn't been "vetted".
Thanks for the background, Cliff. good stuff.
The end of McCain is near.
He forgets what he has said.
He forgets where he is.
Poor guy is gonna need depends to keep from soiling himself since he has no idea where the bathroom is.
Oh well.
Have fun everyone and be sure to vote.
He lost me when he initially stood up strongly against torture and then flipped as a nominee for president and condoned torture.
End of story. Maverick ?? Hardly. Can you imagine him for 4 years? Ouch
McCain/Clinton 08-The Sociapaths Dreamteam.
Sorry, but McCain defends himself spiritedly against what he (and many others) perceive as hacks, flakes and other miscreants in their attempt to malign him. Just what the hell is wrong with that?
"defends himself spiritedly" by muzzling anyone with the temerity to broach the issue and using security to forcibly escort them from the room, rather than just answer the question...
Hello, and welcome to reality. I see you're a tourist around these parts. I'm sure your time here will be a pleasure and comfort, provided you follow a few basic rules.
1) The truth hurts. It's supposed to. The reason Lao-Tzu smiles at the taste of the vinegar is it's sour, just the way it's meant to be.
2) If someone refuses to sue but calls you a liar, it's because they don't want the truth to be given the imprimatur of a court decision and a long, deep public display during the trial while the facts are established.
3) John McCain has a long history of being rude, crass, hateful and mean. This has been documented time and again. See #2 for his response.
4) In these parts, we who live in reality have to call people out for the sort of behavior displayed in #3. The best response is to let go of your fantasies and embrace the facts. It will both support your ability to make sensible decisions and improve your life as well as the lives of others.
Thank you again for visiting reality. I hope you decide to settle down to stay. The more people we have around these parts, the better.
See Scrooge, you are allowed to stay provided you follow the sad blackbird"s rules. Say what??? I'm sure Ms. Huffington loves your typical elitist nonsense, but I'll bet she's smirking at your "few basic rules" assertion. Your comments do raise an important question, miss bossy; does one put the vinegar on the salad before the oil or visa versa?
and all the more reason to vote for Senator Obama... he tells us the truth.. and, even though his pastor was inflammatory... he spoke to truth, as well.. (though you are going to have to go a long long way to convince me that the US govt invented HIV to kill black peoples)... We hate to hear truth... we hate to think of ourselves as less than perfect. That is EXACTLY why we have done NOTHING to help our nation in the past 30 years... Please peoples.. realize that we need to fundamentally change how we govern.. What we are doing now is not working....
Nicely done!
Good writing does show up here at HuffPo now and again. Thanks for the latest episode.
Thank you, mediamarv ;-)
Posted May 6, 2008 | 04:05 PM (EST)